Skip to main content

tv   This Week With Christiane Amanpour  ABC  August 1, 2010 7:00am-8:00am PST

8:00 am
good morning. i'm christiane amanpour. and at the top of the news this week -- the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. she's won big victories on health care, the stimulus, and fnl reform. is her party at risk of losing the house in november? how does this happen? >> well, that's one version of the story. >> and as the war in afghanistan ends its deadliest month, tough questions for the speaker. that's my question to you. nancy pelosi. a "this week" exclusive. then the war log. the massive leak. >> there are potentially dramatic and grievously harmful results. >> this morning, assessing the damage to the war effort. an exclusive interview with the secretary of defense.
8:01 am
plus analysis from the power house round table. from madrid, the world authority on the taliban, ahmed rashid joins george will, donna brazile and paul krugman. and, the "sunday funnies." >> do leaked documents endangerer our mission in afghanistan? and more importantly, do they reveal what that mission is? good morning. i am thrilled to be here at the newseum. after 20 years covering the world, the story in this country is turning into one of the most fascinating. the struggle over politics and policy and how they merge to meet people's needs. and having witnessed firsthand the global challenges and opportunities that america faces every day, i'm also eager to open a window on the world and
quote
8:02 am
cut through those complicated issues we all confront. two big stories have dominated the news this week. we have two big exclusives. we talked to secretary defense robert gates about wikileaks and the afghan war. but we begin with the balance of power right here. and the most powerful woman in the united states. house speaker nancy pelosi. i sat down with her in her a ceremonial office as the house prepared for the summer recess. thank you so much mofor joining me. >> my pleasure. >> can i ask you about some of new this is week? that would be on afghanistan. last year, 32 democrats society voted guest the war in afghanistan. this year, 102. that seems to be a dramatic rejection by the president's own party of his major strategic
8:03 am
goals. >> not quite. our president came in, he was president maybe two months, three months by the time we took the vote last year. the republicans said they were not going to vote for the funding. and so it took all democratic votes. i persuaded my members to give this president a chance to give him room in order to have time to implement his plan. now the republicans said they would vote for it. it gave my members the freedom to express themselves on the war in afghanistan. >> you didn't vote. the speaker doesn't have to vote. how would you have voted? >> we brought the bill to the floor. that was the statement that said we knew that our troops needed to have what they needed to have would be provided for them. we will never abandon our men and women in uniform. on the other hand, it gave our members a chance to express their views.
8:04 am
>> how long do you think you can keep your skeptical members, as you call them, on side? >> we have varying degrees of expression. we're there. we take an oath to defend the constitution and the american people. that's what people will be looking at. how does this figure into our protecting the american people? is it worth it? >> is it worth it? is it worth it? >> that's the question. >> that's my question to you? >> we'll see the metrics as they unfold. >> what does your gut tell you? >> in if i -- in my visits to afghanistan, i was in afghanistan over mother's day weekend. the metrics have been about security. and the military tells us this cannot be won militarily solely. governance and ending corruption. >> i'm trying to figure out what you think is the right thing to do in afghanistan at the moment. i mean, look, "time" magazine
8:05 am
this week has this as its cover. a girl that has had her nose and ears cut off by the taliban. is america going to abandon the women of afghanistan, the people of afghanistan again? >> it's in our strategic national interests to be there for our own national security. to stop terrorism and increase global security. the women of afghanistan have been a priority for many of the women and men in congress. when i was there in -- around mother's day, i went to a province in southern afghanistan and visited with women. we talked about the education of their children, the health of the women. their daughters. they said, we want that. but that can't happen without security. and these women, in this remote province told us and that can't happen without the end of corruption. what we would like to see is
8:06 am
president karzai to be a more reliable, stronger partner in ending the corruption, increasing, improving the governance. >> vice president biden, talking about the deadline for what they're now calling the transition, the summer of 2011, he said on the program a week or two ago there will be a drawdown of forces. >> it could be as few as a couple thousand troops. it could be more. but there will be a transition. >> does that square with what you think? >> i hope it is more than that. i know it's not going to be turn out the lights and let's all go home on one day. but i do think the american people expect it to be somewhere between that and a few thousand troops. >> let's go to something closer to home at the moment. the ethics conundrum with representative rangel. how does your affection square
8:07 am
with what's going on right now? and what you said that this is going to be the most ethical congress. you're going to drain the swamp of any kind of wrongdoing, corruption, et cetera? >> i said we'll drain the swamp when we came in. we did. we passed the most sweeping ethics reform in the history of the congress. any respect and affection for people makes us sad about the course of events. but we have to uphold a high ethical standard. and none of our personalities is stronger than that. >> can you see congressman rangel returning to a position of leadership in the house? >> the ethics committee is working its will. they wait and see what the committee decides. i respect what they do. i'm totally out of the loop. it's independent.
8:08 am
it's confidential. classified, secret. whatever. we don't know what it is. we do respect the work that the members of the committee do. >> let me ask you about the midterm election. you, by all accounts, one of the most if not the most powerful and successful speaker in the history of the united states. you have passed so much legislation. the president was elected with a significant majority. you had control of both houses of congress. and yet, now, people are talking about you might lose your majority in the house. the gap seems to be growing wider. between what's achieved and what is making an impact with the people. how did this happen? >> well, that's one version of the story. and as you pose it -- >> many people are asking that. how did you get to the place where perhaps you might lose the majority? >> we don't see it that way. we're proud of the agenda we put forth. for the american people. our recovery package, as
8:09 am
economists said, we would have twice as many people unemployed as there are now if we had not moved forward. all the actions are controversial because we're digging our way out of a deep ditch. we've been legislating for the last 18 months. the other side has been in campaign mode. saying no. our members are the best salespersons for their own districts. they've been elected there. they know the constituents. >> are you nervous about november? >> no. >> not at all? i know you're putting on great face as people have to going into an election. people say there's considerable worry about what will happen in november. >> let me say this. i never take anything for granted. we're not going back to failed policies of the bush administration. we're going forward. >> so what does it make you feel, then, when the president's own spokesman says you might
Check
8:10 am
lose the majority? how do you feel about it? >> with all due respect, i don't spend great deal of time thinking about what the president's employees say. >> but it directly impacts. >> i'm speaker of the house. we have a solid plan of messaging and mobilizing the grassroots level and managements of our campaigns. we have a 2 to 1 advantage money-wise. we feel confident about where we are, whether that's well known to that gentleman or not. >> let me ask you about the tax cuts. are you going to take that issue to a fight before the elections? letting the tax cuts for the 250,000 expire and then keep them on for the middle class? >> the tax cut for the wealthiest, the $250,000 and above, were the bush initiative.
8:11 am
i don't see any reason to renew a tax cut that only gives a tax cut to the wealthiest people in america, increases the deficit and doesn't create jobs. that doesn't meet any standard. >> i know that's your position. but for the middle class -- >> keep the middle class tax cuts. the recovery act -- >> would you take to it a vote before the election? >> it would be my hope. on the recovery act, nearly $300 billion of the recovery act were tax cuts to the middle class. most people don't realize that. the republicans want to have the tax cut. they want it unpaid for. $700 billion added to the deficit for an initiative that doesn't create jobs. >> can i show you something? >> sure. >> there's so much polarization, so much partisanship, in the press, among the people, in politics. you have talked about us and them in your view. i want to show you this. a republican commercial. >> briefly confined to liberal san francisco.
8:12 am
pelosi has grown into a power-hungry goliath. defying the will of the american people. who has the power to stop her? who can save america? >> i hadn't seen that before. >> really? >> i've not seen that. i have seen that in campaigning. >> what do you think about that, being the bogeyman. >> i think it was the 12th district of pennsylvania. their whole campaign was an attack on the president and pelosi. i said to the president, i think i may have gotten more focus than you on this one time. they fully expected to win the race. we won the race by 8.5 points. this is funny. it attracts attention. they have nothing say about what they want to do. they want to privatize social
8:13 am
security. their agenda, if they win, is to go to the exact agenda as the previous administration. we welcome that campaign. >> for me, looking in from outside, it seems there is a never-ending partisanship. what can you do for the people in this highly polarized situation? >> first of all, what you define as -- describe as a highly polarized situation is a very big difference of opinion. the republicans are here for the special interests. we're here for the people's interest. the president said we'll measure our progress, our success by the progress that is made by america's working families. that's our priority. that is not their priority. this is not about inter-party bickering. this is about major philosophical difference about whose side you're on. you don't like to think that. we come here to find our common ground. if we can't find it, we still have to move. i have never voted for a perfect bill in my life. i don't think anyone has. i wish it were not so stark.
8:14 am
i wish the election wasn't so necessary for us to win. i really do. there should be more common ground. are we unhappy that, not at the -- the job creation has not gone as fast as we would like? we were digging out of a deep hole. we'll continue to fight. >> speaker pelosi, thank you for joining us. >> i look forward to welcoming you back again. congratulations to you. >> thank you. >> much success. >> and for more of my interview with nancy pelosi, go to the "this week" page at abcnews.com. and now to the leak of documents by wikileaks. the leak that's triggered a criminal investigation. i asked the secretary of defense, robert gates, how this all happened and how it will affect the war effort. thank you for joining us. welcome to "this week." >> thank you. >> let's start with wikileaks. how can and ordinary soldier,
8:15 am
sitting as his computer, apparently listening to lady gaga or whatever, spew all of this out without anybody knowing? >> it's an interesting question. had he tried to do this or whoever did it tried to do it at a rear headquarters, overseas, or pretty much anywhere here in the u.s., we have controls in place that would have allowed us to detect it. one of the changes that has happened as we have fought these wars in iraq and afghanistan is to put as much intelligence as far forward to the soldiers as we possibly can. so at a forward operating base they know the security risks and they have information to help them accomplish their mission. we put an enormous amount of
8:16 am
information out at the secret level and push it the furthest forward as possible. it was much easier to do in theater, in afghanistan or iraq, than it would have been in a rear headquarters or here in the u.s. >> do you have to reassess that? >> i think we have to look at it. my bias is that if one or a few members of the military did this, the notion that we would handicap our soldiers on the front lines by denying them information in an effort to try and prevent this from happening -- my bias is against that. i want those kids out there to have all the information they can have. and so we're going to look at, are there ways in which we can mitigate the risks without denying the forward soldiers the information? >> how angry were you? beyond the fact that classified
8:17 am
information is out there, the substance on it? >> i'm not sure anger is the right word. mortified. appalled. if i'm angry, it's because i believe that this information puts those in afghanistan who have helped us at risk. it puts our soldiers at risk because they can learn a lot -- our adversaries can learn from the body of the leaked documents. i think that's what puts our soldiers at risk. and then, as i say, our sources. growing up in the intelligence business, protecting your sources is sacrosanct. there was no sense of responsibility or accountability associated with it. >> taliban spokesman told a british news organization they're indeed going to go after
8:18 am
any of the names they find in the treasure trove of documents. they will, as they say, they know how to deal with people. are you worried? admiral mullen says this leak has blood on its hands. >> given the taliban statement, i think it basically proves the point. my attitude on this is there are two areas of culpability. one is legal culpability. and that's up to the justice department and others. that's not my arena. but there's a moral culpability. and that's where i think that the verdict is guilty on wikileaks. they have put it out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences. >> let me ask you about a couple of things. one is the taliban and stinger missiles. do they have stinger missiles?
8:19 am
>> i don't think so. >> at all. >> i don't think so. >> the other is about pakistan. again raising the notion, no matter how much you say they're moving in your direction, helping with the fight against the taliban, al qaeda, that they still are hedging their bets. elements in pakistan continue to hedge their bets or out and out support the taliban and what they're doing in afghanistan. how much of a problem is that for you? >> well, it is a concern. there's no question about it. but i would say that, again, we walked out on pakistan and afghanistan in 1989 and left them basically holding the bag. and there is always the fear that we will do that again. and i believe that's the reason there's a certain hedge. but what i see is a change in the strategic calculus in pakistan. as they see these groups attacking pakistan itself, where
8:20 am
they are more and more partnering with us and working with us and fighting the insurgents. they have 140,000 soldiers in northwestern pakistan fighting some of the same insurgents we are. >> they're fighting the insurgents that are threatening them. they haven't gone into the safe havens, northern waziristan. general jones has told the "washington post" -- the safe havens are a big question mark in terms of the success rate. unless they do that. cut off those safe havens, will you succeed in afghanistan? >> i think we can. but -- >> even if the safe havens exist? >> we clearly would like them to go after the safe havens. they have gone after some of the safe havens. in south waziristan. places 18 months ago i wouldn't have believed the pakistanis would be actively engaged. militarily. and so the pakistanis, going after any of these groups, i
8:21 am
believe, overall, helps us with what we're trying to achieve with afghanistan and al qaeda. >> but given the way the war is going right now, given the fact that the taliban are very wily and adaptable enemies and they have a place to go across the border and hide, can you afford the wait for the pakistanis to move on into northern waziristan? >> i think, first of all, we're increasing cooperation with the pakistanis, in terms of working on both sides of the border. in terms of trying to prevent people from crossing that border. we're increasing our forces in eastern afghanistan that will help us to this. i think we're moving in the right direction. >> you don't have an open-ended period of time. the president has clearly said that the summer of 2011 is a period of transition. people are interpreting that
8:22 am
many ways. as you know. the taliban is clearly trying to run out the clock. let me put something up that was said about timetable. >> they believe that we had stated a date certain. that we were going to leave in the summer of 2011. they went out and spoke to the population and said, the americans are leaving in 18 months, as it was then. what are you doing on the 19th month? we'll still be there and they won't be. >> so that question is out there. so many people are arranging their schedules for 2011. the summer of 2011. my question to you is this. what can general petraeus do to defeat the taliban at their own game? what can he do in afghanistan to avoid the deadline they're setting for themselves? >> i think we need to re-emphasize the message that we are not leaving afghanistan in july of 2011.
8:23 am
we are beginning a transition process. and a thinning of our ranks. that will -- and the pace will depend on the conditions on the ground. the president has been very clear about that. if the taliban are waiting for the 19th month, i welcome that. because we will be there in the 19th month and we will be there with a lot of troops. i think that -- >> what is a lot of troops? >> well, first of all, i think that my personal opinion is that drawdowns early on will be a fairly limited numbers. as we are successful, we'll probably accelerate. but, again, it will depend on the conditions on the ground. >> is there any way now, between now and december, between now and next summer, to deliver some high-profile, real reconstruction, real progress to
8:24 am
them to make everybody know that you're serious and change the dynamic? >> i think we're already seeing that. we're already seeing it in central helmand. security, governance, economic life is returning. we're seeing it in places like natali. and we're seeing it in places like marjah. it's been slower and tougher than we anticipated. but test g but it's getting better every day. we're seeing it in gradually improving security in the area around kandahar. it will take time. it will be tough. we're going to take casualties. we have warned about this for months that this summer would be very difficult for us. i think there are tangible signs that this approach is working. this strategy is working. the key thing to remember is, the full surge is not even all in afghanistan yet. and will not be until the end of august.
8:25 am
so this surge over the last few months is only beginning to take effect. >> what i think a lot of people maybe don't get is that the afghan people still want the american forces there. and the latest abc poll shows that 68% of the afghan people want the american forces still there. do you think that there has been an opportunity missed or should there be an opportunity seized by yourself, maybe by the president, to go out and speak to the american people more about afghanistan, strategy, about why it's important? >> well, first of all, i'm here. and i think the president has been out and has spoken about this. he talked about it in some detail at the time he nominated general petraeus, about where we were headed. probably, we can do more. but secretary clinton and i and the president and the vice
8:26 am
president and general jones have all been out and talking about this. and i, you know, frankly, one of the things i find frustrating is i think that the president's strategy is quite clear. i hear the stories of what's the strategy? what's the goal here? i think it's quite clear. it's to reverse the momentum of the taliban. deny them control of populated areas. degrade their capabilities at the same time we're building up the afghan security forces. so hat the afghan security forces can deny the taliban and al qaeda a base from which to attack the u.s. pretty straightforward. >> i want to bring up what vice president biden told nbc earlier this week about the strategy and the aims. again, think american people, and i think many people are confused about what is winning?
8:27 am
what is the strategy right now? let me put that up. >> we're in afghanistan for one purpose. al qaeda. the threat to the united states. al qaeda that exists in the mountains between afghanistan and pakistan. we're not there to nation-build. >> is that it? is that the war? >> i agree with that. we're not there to -- to take on a nationwide reconstruction or construction project in afghanistan. what we have to do is focus our efforts on those civilian aspects and governments that help us accomplish our security objective. we're in afghanistan because we were attacked from afghanistan. not because we want to build a bitter society in afghanistan. but doing things there to the degree that it contributes to our security mission and the security arena, that's what we're going to do.
8:28 am
>> final question. do you think the way out is to strike a deal with the taliban? >> i think that the -- i think that the way out is to improve the security situation in afghanistan to the point and to degrade the taliban to a degree where they're willing to consider reconciliation on the terms of the afghan government. detaching themselves from al qaeda. agreeing to abide by the afghan constitution. agreeing to put down their weapons. those are the conditions -- reconciliation must be the end game here. but it must take place on the terms of the afghan government. >> you think that can happen in a year? >> well, we're not limited to a year. i think that it can happen in the time frame that we're looking at ahead. again. july 2011 is not the end. it is the beginning of a transition. >> secretary gates, thank you so
8:29 am
much for joining us. >> thanks a lot. >> thank you. up next, analysis on the afghan story. all the week's politics from the powerhouse "roundtable." george will, paul krugman, and donna brazile. and from madrid, ahmed rashid, the world's expert on the taliban. so stay with us. [ male announcer ] the financial headlines
8:30 am
can be unsettling. but what if there were a different story? of one financial company that grew stronger through the crisis. when some lost their way, this company led the way. by protecting clients and turning uncertainty into confidence. what if that story were true? it is. ♪
8:31 am
it is. this is data. data generated from an electrical grid. from wires, streets, businesses, homes. when you can harness data, you can do things you couldn't do before. prepare for alternative energy sources, accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, help prevent blackouts. see the data from energy usage as it happens and you can do what they're doing in places like california and build a smarter energy system. let's build a smarter planet.
8:32 am
[ man ] if it was simply about money, every bank loan would be a guarantee of success. at ge capital, loaning money is the start of the relationship, not the end. i work with polaris every day. at ge capital, we succeed only when they do. whoo! awesome! yes! we've got to get you out of the office more often. ♪ my turn to drive. ♪ coming up next, our "roundtable" and "the sunday e"nnies." and "the sunday funnies".
8:33 am
8:34 am
wikileaks, along with three major newspapers has published major pub00 classified intelligence ocuments. the largest leak in history. > there are names. here are operations. there's logistics. it poses a real and potential th threat. >> i'm a combative person. they mighti like it. ve on theirh is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or
8:35 am
that of an afghan family. > highlights from the wikileaks ighlights from thaken up ksshington and capitals around the world. we'll talk about that and more on our "roundtable," with george will, democrat ek strategist donna brazile. shid, theman. and in madrid this morning, let ahmed rashid, the world authority on the taliban. thank you for joining thus morning. let me go to you first, george. what about the leak? how bad sit has to reassess wthe war tffort? how bad is it for a government helpful. to reassess what it oes with state secrets? ersthey were lethal without being helpful. vietnam war thad methods and sources. what w saying not a bit like the pentagon papers that shows the
8:36 am
vietnam war that the government had a different understanding of what was going on in vietnam than it was saying publicly. these are redundant anecdotes of what we all new about good lismnalism and a truthful government. y gateseft with the mission. in your interview with secretary gates, he said the following. ion.e in afghanistan because we were attacked from afghanistan. notice the preposition. attacked by jt attacked by afghanistan. not in the sense we were attacked by japan and pearl harbor. james jones said we have to be there because otherwise, the s jones said we haave more space to plot and train. h exactly. >> we were attacked from >> the rea amburg, certainly. go toan plan anywhere. >> the real ground war is in afghanistan. d.t me go to ahmed. what is your assessment of how n that came out ofthe material ar?ormation that came out of that could affect the war? >> well, again.
8:37 am
i don't think there has been much new information. the impact has been extraordinary in america, in europe. by the the war has not been properly followed by the public. he media has not followed it. i think people are shocked about the degree of detail and concept that has come out. i don't think anything drastically new has come out. >> yet. cally new hahings the taliban talibanlow up on. on.precisely. and i wanted to ask you about that. lready they have said they're going to be searching and. scouring the treasure trove. do you foresee that there are going to be bodies turning up in anistan amo among the people helping the united states? >> i hope that -- a lot of the >> onks are quite old. names have moved on. a lot of the names may be false names. i hope we're not going to see goies. certainly, this is something --
8:38 am
the taliban are extremely good goodllowing debates in the e western western media. debates in parliament, europe, the congress. they will have seen this new vote just now. ag a vote where so many of the democrats seem to be voting are expere war. they are expert now at following up. id if there are people to be followed up upon, they will do l do so.let me put that to donna and dul. the idea that they are really mart, they read the western western they have a highly they have sophisticated, whether we like to think it or not, media operation. >> it put the afghanistan war back on the front page. the longest war in the united situatio states history. arters are weary of this war ight now. strategy.is worrying about the funding and strategy. administra mission.t will give the cemberstration an opportunity to alk about the mission. heore december, when the president announced he intends to y'reeassess what they're doing, i think it raises a question
8:39 am
oing, pakistan's involvement with the taliban. and whether or not mr. er oai is up for the job. questions.erious questions. this.e timetable. wewhen i look at this. people say, we can't abandon abandistan. i'm surprised people are not pointing out that basically, the ago.sion to abandon afghan tan run.taken eight years ago. uset years ago, when the itliban was on the run. when they could have used momentum to change it. that's when the bush administration pulled resources out of afghanistan because they wanted to invade iraq instead. you're asking obama to recover obama situation where he spent ofht years losing credibility. > right now, bill kristol wrote kristolto the president saying,
8:40 am
presidente 2011 deadline. what do you think has to happen to make this war winnable for he united states? es in his remarks to you, secretary gates semirescinded it saying july 2011 is fairly imited numbers of withdrawal. that's making it a fairly that makes i elastic deadline. ne.k what -- and our friend in madrid can comment. secretary gates said to you today that the purpose is to where degrade the taliban to a degree rnment.hey're ready to consider reconciliation on the terms of he afghan gort. afghament. that sounds like surrender. and many afghan people would say, give me a third. i don't like the afghan government. did you readu read that? hink thisk this will be the very thedebate that takes place within the obama administration the
8:41 am
ome december. n in the policy review takes place. the ot u.s.ther position to this is that the u.s. should start talks with the taliban as soon as ossible. and that will then trigger much aetter attempts to try and bring about a regional cohesion, a egional alliance to support those talks. the taliban have made it clear they want to talk to americans directly. any such talks can't be based on conditions set by america, as they wou ates has just done. they would have to be free and open talks and would have to continue for some time. you havence you have a dialogue eoing with the taliban, then ou, i think, can go to the pakistanis and the isi and say, e're talking to the taliban, this is the end game now. we're taliban,es will continue. talks will continue. the surnls wil inue.ow have to give a deadline for the end of the safe havens for the taliban leaders. the taliban leaders should know that the safe havens will have a limited time frame.
8:42 am
and the negotiations will have a limited time frame. and th imelots, lots to talk about on this particular issue. but let's move on a little bit. i i asked speaker pelosi about the war funding in the house and r she thohe thought the president needed to talk to the country more about afghanistan. securis what she said. >> they're worried about hearmic security. that's what they want to hear from the president. ho how we can increase, create jobs in the country. country.e deficit. >> there you have it. deficit. security is the number one preoccupation. economic as it always would be with the ofe problems of unemployment. there's a huge debate right now, dil leading economists basically sisagree on how, on what effect stimulus has had. had. we geficit reduction? hearingsterity?
8:43 am
s it more stimulus? way i look ato and what does it mean to people? >> i think it means a lot of confusion to people. they're not hearing any clear debaage. way i look at it is there are two sides in the debate. inflationistas and deflationistas. inflationistas a we're going have inflation, we have budget deficits. interest interest rates will go sky high. go deflationistas say we have had major crisis. in the face of that, the obama stimulus plan is too small. interest rates stay low. isis.y wants to spend. the risk is deflation. so far, the deflationistas have been totally right. what's interesting is that the political debate is being lower.ted by the people that ave been wrong about everything up to this point. people say, well, interest rates the lower. they just hit another low. they keep on saying, oh, but
8:44 am
it's any day now. we have to be afraid of the people visible in the markets. people feel there has to be a aust reason to make people suffer graphic.e. happeningput up this graphic. growth is happening but 2.4%, slower than most people wanted. slower see you shaking your head in this debate. financial times is saying that this deficit talk is a phony financia rhetorical war. defi pimulus has had some effect. you're shaking your head. >> recovery is more than a year more and we know two things about it. wea unusually weak. for recovery after a severe gett downturn. and b, starting weak, it's getting weaker. runningons. the stimulus is running out. paul's right. cash for clunkers has come and one. the home buyer's tax credit, for particularly new homes, has come and gone. it's built on inventories.
8:45 am
businesses rebuilding the mr. and mrs. in the hopes of the consumer coming back to the malls. the consumer has begun to save. ft. savings rate is 6.2%. you have the paradox of thrift. it's a virtue until it's not a virtue. >> clearly, what's happening is ingre not creating jobs. the economy is not creating otough jobs. bs.mployment remains high. democratsats will have to campaign on the promise that the thecies they have put forward thus far has averted the great depression 2.0. forward,rward, this is a choice ctween going back to the past or going forward. rward.rings us back to the bush s and whetherwhether or not the expirss will let them expire in january or let some of them stay e ofhe table.
8:46 am
>> you heard what i asked ieaker pelosi. she said she hoped this would come to a resolution before the don't t is that likely? >> i don't think so. congress is away for six weeks. return, going to campaign on what they have accomplished. i think when they return, provide economi have to turn back toward the budget, the orge,my. and once again, convince the voters they have done something to provide economic growth for the future. >> george, exactly what i would have done. the forces for growth are fading out. not looking good going forward. this is very difficult. it's hard for an administration a power to run on the campaign slogan, it could have been worse. and that is essentially -- it is woe. it could have been worse. but that doesn't sell well. >> lest it be thought that paul t iti agree. >> well, you might. maybe this is rarity today. se.not the case. paul thinks the government is dangerously frugal at this point.
8:47 am
dangerously i side with kenneth at harvard i do not. who says there is time for austerity, and this is it. >> well -- >> that's happening in europe, as you know. austerity, and >> i think ken rogoff is doing damage with bad statistics. > can i move over to madrid again and ask ahmed about the whatmy? it clearly impacts what is happening in america's foreign policy as well. hat do people in pakistan, who lookbeen promised so much aid by the u.s., does this figure in their debates when they look at the u.s., the fact that the encey is shorter? >> it does very much. think, really, people are fully ware that the continuation of the american presence in cially in thend the aid to pakistan is dependent, hostage, if you like, to whether the
8:48 am
american economy picks up or not. especially in the autumn when the surge will be completed. the troop surge will be ompleted. a critical moment will appear when obama has to decide what his next six months, one-year policy is going to be. policy i it will be dominated by how effective or unaffective the effective oonomy is doing. we've seen the votes in congress. american what happens in three months time if the vote is more lopsided in congress and more emocrats turn against the war? >> that is a big question. let us move on. i want toant to move to something else that democrats made a huge big deal about. when they came in. o have an ethical congress. to have -- drain the swamp. as many people said. this is what president obama said in the last couple of days nter the travails of charlie rangel. >> i think charlie rangel certained a very long time and served his constituents very very these allegations are very troubling. he's somebody at the end of his areer, 80 years old.
8:49 am
i'm sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career bth dignity. my hope is that happens. >> it would be politically expedient for mr. rangel to just step down. expedien resign. he's not the kind of lawmaker to do that. ohese are serious allegations. mr. rangel would like to have chs day on the hill to defend himself and defend his honor and answer to some of these charges. it's easy to drain the swamp if you have drano. it's clogged up. i think mr. rangel and others want their day to clear their heir day >> what about the president's tatement? statement? it's fair enough. let me ask, there's something i ask,t understand. don't understandjor ations under s under way. charlie rangel, accused of some ch petty, though stupid and wrong shical violations. and there's senator john ensign, but senato
8:50 am
facing a criminal investigation. even a story that involved sex, and you get no publicity at all on the ensign investigation. more that fair, george? >> rangel is much more rtant.ant. his misfortune is a national asfortune. we desperately need, and after esperately in december, we might have had serious tax eform in this country. that requires a cooperative member leading that committee in the house. >> but nothing's going to happen. ittee,ng to come out of the deficit commission, it would be important. but it not.it's not. ngelangel has a weak position -- a weak case but a strong position. his strong position is the is thing democrats wod everyone wants e canover with so that the democrats won't be tarred with this. and therefore he can hold out for some minor reprimand. just to liquidate this. and get out of here.
8:51 am
>> in way, he's the hamid karzai of the u.s. congress. ey make of it?e 15 seconds left. we're out of time. thank you all so much for joining us. and the "roundtable" continues in the green room on findws.com. where later, you can also find our fact check. we've teamed up to check the show. you can follow me on facebook and twitter. coming up here, the "sunday funnies."
8:52 am
there's oil out there we've got to capture. my job is to hunt it down. i'm fred lemond, and i'm in charge of bp's efforts to remove oil from these waters. bp has taken full responsibility for the cleanup and that includes keeping you informed. every morning, over 50 spotter planes and helicopters take off and search for the oil. we use satellite images, infrared and thermal photography to map and target the oil. then, the boats go to work. almost 6,000 vessels. these are thousands of local shrimp and fishing boats organized into task forces and strike teams. plus, specialized skimmers from around the world. we've skimmed over 27 million gallons of oil/water mixture and removed millions more with other methods. we've set out more than 8 million feet of boom to protect the shoreline. i grew up on the gulf coast and i love these waters. we can't keep all the oil from coming ashore, but i'm gonna do everything i can to stop it, and we'll be here as long as it takes
8:53 am
to clean up the gulf. now, "in memoriam" -- m" --l you see, all just 25 cents each. all the time. at aldi. ♪ ♪ you gotta be a special lady ♪ you gotta be ♪tta be ♪ ♪ love on a two-way street and lost it on a ♪
8:54 am
alle remember all of those who ied in war this week. end the pentagon released the names of 11 u.s. service members killed in afghanistan. we'll be right back. ♪ you've taken a journey filled with surprises.
8:55 am
you set your sights on a destination and arrived exactly where you wanted to go. with pacific life, you're ready for wherever that road leads to next. as you head towards your future, count on pacific life. ask your financial professional about pacific life. the power to help you succeed. to chart a greener path in the air and in our factories. ♪ to find cleaner, more efficient ways to power flight. ♪ and harness our technology for new energy solutions. [ female announcer ] around the globe, the people of boeing are working together, to build a better tomorrow. that's why we're here. ♪
8:56 am
and now, "the sunday funnies." tonyny hayward, the bp guy. guy. stepping down. he's been reassigned. reassigned to russia. if he screws up there, no one ed to otice. because russia already has the black sea. >> the 2012 olympics started two years from today. today.inese team marked the day by being born. a bunch of secret documents onaks on the internet in about thewar. aboutworry. the plans for chelsea clinton's chelseaare still top secret. mum's the word. one of the worst heat waves heatcountry has ever seen.
8:57 am
i actually know who to blame. check out this video. >> i made the very dangerous weather this summer. because i hate people and the environment. we'll be'll be back with a feature we're adding, our "picture of this week." capitaln they come to us for help. at ge capital, we've been financing taylor guitars for over eight years, helping them build a strong dealer network. bringing music to people... i like that. ♪ ♪ [ bob ] i didn't know you could play. i didn't either. ♪
8:58 am
and finally this morning, his "picture of this week." week."eleased its state of the climate report this week. t concludes that the past thate was the warmest on record and the earth has been growing decade was t beenr over the last 50 years. we leave you with pictures from warmer o you and around the world of s from cooling off from a very hot july. k.ank you so much for watching. i hope to see you next week. $ñ@@@@@@@@@@
8:59 am